Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seismologist Manslaughter Trial Begins Next Week

Posted by Soulskill on from the defining-reasonable-prognostication dept.

El Puerco Loco writes with a followup to a story we discussed in May about the manslaughter charges facing six seismologists and one government official in Italy after an earthquake there killed 309 people and destroyed 20,000 buildings. The case is going to trial next week, and an article at Nature provides an update on how things stand: "The indictments have drawn global condemnation. The American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), both in Washington DC, issued statements in support of the Italian defendants. ... The view from L'Aquila, however, is quite different. Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population. ... [The charges allege that the defendants] provided 'incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information' to a public that had been unnerved by months of persistent, low-level tremors. [Prosecutor Fabio Picuti] says that the commission was more interested in pacifying the local population than in giving clear advice about earthquake preparedness. 'I'm not crazy,' Picuti says. 'I know they can't predict earthquakes. The basis of the charges is not that they didn't predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L'Aquila.'"

8 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Lack of evidence of damage.... by gtvr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can the prosecution prove that with proper warning, any specific number of lives or amount of property would have been saved? I doubt it.

    1. Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Funny

      No one in Naples has moved away from Vesuvius despite insistent warnings of disaster from seismologists.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by DanTheStone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The crime is (apparently) that they failed to provide sufficient and consistent information for everyone to ignore.

    3. Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by joocemann · · Score: 4, Informative

      I should point out (lacking links to slashdot stories because I'm on a phone) that the scientists DID predict the earthquake, but were somethinglike 2 weeks early... they partially evacuated, and in under 2 weeks the authorities initiated "yelling fire in a theater" type charges against the scientists. Once those charges were made in haste, the actual earthquake came and people died.

      From what I can deduce; authorities are blame shifting the damages that arose by hastily saying the scientists were wrong instead of admitting that they were right all along (albeit with imperfect prediction).

  2. Which is worse by alphatel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In America, climatologists get sued and harassed for making public statements about global warming.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  3. Giampaolo Giuliani by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Informative

    When one seismologist is accused of being alarmist by the Director of the Civil Defence, forced to remove his findings from the Internet, and reported to police for "causing fear" when he predicts an earthquake, is it no wonder why other seismologists would hesitate to report an impending earthquake?

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  4. Re:Social Responsiblity by Derekloffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because engineering has some very well established science behind it, and on top of that you can overbuild to get around uncertainty. Seismology is worlds away from that level of certainty, and you're suppose to give accurate predictions so there is no equivalent to overbuilding.

  5. They are right but got the wrong person by Hentes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you read the article? Those people weren't clueless. They have lived in a high risk area for generations and knew that if they feel a tremor they should get out of the house immedietly. Which is what they did until the comittee went to the town in order to calm them down (supposedly under government pressure). In the meeting, one scientist said that the tremors in fact decrease the risk of an earthquake because they release the pressure. Wich sounded logical to a layman but is total bullshit. Another scientist who dared to disagree was sued and silenced.The people of the town concluded that there is nothing to be afraid of and left the precautions they practiced for centuries. This wasn't an honest mistake but deliberate spread of misinfromation.